Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes - Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Mainstreaming gender
into social protection strategies
and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Zanzib
Elena Camilletti, Tara Patricia Cookson, Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmed,
Rita Sandoval, Silke Staab and Constanza Tabbush
June 2021UNICEF OFFICE OF RESEARCH – INNOCENTI The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti is UNICEF’s dedicated research centre. It undertakes research on emerging or current issues in order to inform the strategic direction, policies and programmes of UNICEF and its partners, shape global debates on child rights and development, and inform the global research and policy agenda for all children, and particularly for the most vulnerable. The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti publications are contributions to a global debate on children and may not necessarily reflect UNICEF policies or approaches. The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti receives financial support from the Government of Italy, while funding for specific projects is also provided by other governments, international institutions and private sources, including UNICEF National Committees. UN WOMEN UN Women is the United Nations entity dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. A global champion for women and girls, UN Women was established to accelerate progress on meeting their needs worldwide. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNICEF and UN Women. This paper has been peer reviewed both externally and within UNICEF. The text has not been edited to official publications standards and UNICEF and UN Women accept no responsibility for errors. Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement. Requests to utilize larger portions or the full publication should be addressed to the Communications Unit at: florence@unicef.org. Any part of this publication may be freely reproduced if accompanied by the following citation: Camilletti, E., Cookson, T.P., Nesbitt-Ahmed, Z., Sandoval, R., Staab, S. and Tabbush, C., Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes: Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries, UNICEF Innocenti and UN Women, New York. Correspondence should be addressed to: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti Via degli Alfani, 58 50121 Florence, Italy Tel: (+39) 055 20 330 Fax: (+39) 055 2033 220 florence@unicef.org www.unicef-irc.org twitter: @UNICEFInnocenti facebook.com/UnicefInnocenti © 2021 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Cover photo: © UNICEF/UNI388997/Mussapp Telma Paz, 36, along with her children of 11, 9 and 4 years old, benefit from the Bono Familia programme granted by the Government of Guatemala, thanks to the support of UNICEF and the World Bank. Editorial production: Sarah Marchant, UNICEF Innocenti Graphic design: Alessandro Mannocchi, Rome
Mainstreaming gender
into social protection strategies
and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Zanzib
Elena Camilletti, Tara Patricia Cookson, Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmed,
Rita Sandoval, Silke Staab and Constanza Tabbush
June 2021Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Authors
Elena Camillettii, Tara Patricia Cooksoniii , Zahrah Nesbitt-Ahmedi, Rita Sandovaliv, Silke Staabii and Constanza
Tabbushii
i
UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
ii
UN Women
iii
Ladysmith
iv
The New School
Keywords
gender; social protection; low- and middle-income countries; LMICs
Acknowledgements
This research report is the result of a collaboration between UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti and
UN Women. All authors wish to acknowledge participants to the socialprotection.org e-conference
(6 October 2020), and participants to the Innocenti Experts workshop on gender-responsive and age-
sensitive social protection (6 May 2019) for their comments and feedback at different stages of this research,
and Tayllor Renee Spadafora, Rebecca Holmes and Deepta Chopra for their peer review. Further, authors
from UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti wish to thank Constanza Ginestra and Abha Shri Saxena, for
their excellent research assistance; Ramya Subrahmanian, Dominic Richardson, Prerna Banati, and Ruth
Graham-Goulder for their review and feedback at different stages of this research; and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)
for generous funding as part of the Gender-Responsive Age-Sensitive Social Protection (GRASSP) research
programme. See more at https://www.unicef-irc.org/research/gender-responsive-and-age-sensitive-
social-protection/. Authors from UN Women would like to thank Elena Ruiz and Laura Turquet for review
and feedback.
2Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Contents
List of boxes and figures...............................................................................................................................4
Abbreviations.................................................................................................................................................5
Executive summary....................................................................................................................................6
Background and objectives......................................................................................................................6
Methodology...........................................................................................................................................6
Findings...................................................................................................................................................6
Implications for programming and policymaking.....................................................................................6
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................7
II. Analytical framework and approach..................................................................................................9
Concepts and definitions.........................................................................................................................9
Analytical framework.............................................................................................................................10
Methodology and approach................................................................................................................... 11
III. Key findings......................................................................................................................................... 13
1. Overarching framework..................................................................................................................... 13
2. Recognition of gendered risks and vulnerabilities............................................................................. 15
3. Gender-specific measures and programme design features.............................................................20
4. Monitoring, evaluation and accountability.........................................................................................27
IV. Conclusions and policy implications................................................................................................29
References.................................................................................................................................................32
Annexes
Annex 1: analytical framework and list of indicators....................................................................................40
Annex 2: list of strategies analysed.............................................................................................................43
Annex 3: list of social protection programmes analysed.............................................................................45
3Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
List of boxes and figures
Box 1: El Salvador’s National Development, Social protection and Inclusion Plan, 2014-2019.................. 15
Box 2: Examples of programmes with linkages to other programmes and services.................................26
Box 3: Strategies and programmes where gender is mainstreamed into monitoring, evaluation
and accountability mechanisms......................................................................................................28
Figure 1: Country coverage of national social protection strategies and programmes analysed.............. 11
Figure 2: Number of national social protection strategies developed with the participation
of different stakeholders............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 3: Number of national social protection strategies that recognize different gendered risks
across the life course.................................................................................................................16
Figure 4: Prevalence of child and early marriage in selected sub-Saharan African countries,
with and without recognition of it as a gendered risk................................................................ 17
Figure 5: Rates of adolescent motherhood in selected sub-Saharan countries,
with and without recognition of it as a gendered risk................................................................18
Figure 6: Number of social protection programmes (out of 40) by type of risks and vulnerabilities
in their objectives, and recognition of gendered nature of such risks and vulnerabilities..........20
Figure 7: Number of national social protection strategies with formal recognition and measures
to redress structural gender inequalities, by type of structural gender inequality.....................21
Figure 8: Number of social protection programmes that recognize, and provide specific design
features to address the three structural inequalities..................................................................23
4Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Abbreviations
AUH Asignación Universal por Hijo (Argentina)
BID Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo/Inter-American Development Bank
BISP Benazir Income Support Programme (Pakistan)
BJA Bono Juana Azurduy (Bolivia (Plurinational State of))
EGPP Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (Bangladesh)
FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
GRASSP Gender-Responsive Age-Sensitive Social Protection research programme
ILO International Labour Organization
LMICs low- and middle-income countries
MGNREGS Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (India)
PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme (Ethiopia)
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
UN Women United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment
of Women and Girls
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNICEF Innocenti UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
VAWG violence against women and girls
5Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Executive summary
Background and objectives
The importance of mainstreaming gender into social protection policies and programmes is increasingly
recognized. However, evidence on the extent to which this is actually happening remains limited. This
report contributes to filling this evidence gap by drawing on the findings of two complementary research
projects undertaken by UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti and UN Women in 2019. Using a specifically
developed analytical framework, these two projects reviewed 50 national social protection strategies and
40 social protection programmes across a total of 74 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to assess
the extent to which they incorporate gender equality concerns.
Methodology
The gender analysis was undertaken across four dimensions, each with a specific set of associated
indicators, to answer the following questions:
� Is the overall legal and policy framework conducive to gender mainstreaming?
� Are gendered risks and vulnerabilities acknowledged?
� Are specific measures or programme design features in place to address these risks
and vulnerabilities?
� Are monitoring, evaluation and accountability mechanisms in place to assess gender impacts
and reorient policies and programmes where needed?
Findings
Our review shows that, while most strategies and programmes acknowledge gendered risks and
vulnerabilities linked to women’s reproductive years, there are still important gaps in vulnerability assessments
with regard to other life course stages, such as adolescence and old age. Furthermore, structural inequalities,
like women’s and girls’ disproportionate responsibility for unpaid care work, women’s over-representation
among informal workers with little or no access to social protection, and women’s and girls’ heightened
exposure to gender-based violence, are rarely acknowledged. Even where formal recognition of these
inequalities exists, it is often not followed through with specific actions to redress them. Combined with the
lack of a gender perspective in most monitoring and evaluation frameworks, which could be used to identify
gender gaps and biases in implementation, the risk of a vicious cycle that leaves the rights and needs of
women and girls largely unaddressed looms large.
Implications for programming and policymaking
As countries emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, the renewed emphasis on building robust and resilient
social protection systems provides policymakers and practitioners in the field of social protection with an
unprecedented opportunity to address some of these gaps. Four overarching priorities emerge from our
analysis: (1) the need for social protection strategies and programmes to be built on a comprehensive
identification of gendered risks and vulnerabilities across the life course; (2) greater attention to capacity
building for translating the identification of these risks into the most appropriate policies, and programme
design features to address them; (3) the need to employ such design and delivery features; and (4) greater
coordination with and involvement of gender equality advocates and experts in social protection policy, and
programme decisions to improve their performance for women and girls.
6Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
I. Introduction
Over recent decades, there has been increasing attention paid to social protection by policymakers
around the world. There is now consensus regarding the role of social protection systems in contributing
to poverty eradication and reduced inequalities, in stimulating productive activity and economic growth,
and in creating resilience in the face of multiple and recurrent crises (see, for example, UNRISD 2010;
ILO 2012, 2017; Bastagli et al. 2016; UNDESA 2018; Rodriguez 2013; UNDP 2014). The 2030 Agenda is
the most recent expression of this global trend, underlining as it does the importance of social protection
in ending poverty (SDG 1), enabling decent work (SDG 8) and achieving gender equality (SDG 5), among
other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Despite this global momentum, there are still significant challenges to achieving gender equality in social
protection. Comprehensive social protection coverage across the life course remains the exception rather
than the rule, with the latest International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates suggesting that “only
30.6 per cent of the global population is covered by comprehensive social protection systems including
the full range of benefits, from child and family benefits to old-age pensions, with women’s coverage
lagging behind men’s by a whopping 8 percentage points” (Razavi, 2021). Too often, gender-specific
access barriers, risks and vulnerabilities remain insufficiently recognized, integrated and addressed in
social protection systems and programme design.
COVID-19 has made these shortcomings painfully clear. Emerging evidence suggests that women
and girls have borne the brunt of the economic and social fall-out of the pandemic. In many countries,
women have been disproportionately affected by the loss of jobs and livelihoods (UN Women 2020a).
Women in informal employment have seen their work hours and earnings recover more slowly than
men (Ogando et al. 2021), and mothers, in particular, have been dropping out of the labour force in the
face of prolonged school and daycare closures (UN Women 2020a and 2020b). The economic penalties
associated with unpaid care responsibilities are particularly devastating for women at the lower end of
the income distribution.
Even before the pandemic, there were significant gender gaps in poverty during the key reproductive
years (25–34). Global estimates suggest that the pandemic will push an additional 47 million women
and girls into poverty in 2021 and that the gender poverty gap will worsen, from 118 women in poverty
for every 100 men in poverty in 2021 to 121 women in poverty for every 100 men in poverty by 2030
(UN Women 2020a). The current context is grim for girls, too, whose time is being redirected away from
schooling and learning – for example, towards unpaid care and domestic work – with potential impacts
on their longer-term well-being, including likely increases in child and early marriage (Bakrania et al. 2020;
ILO and UNICEF 2020).
Despite this evidence, the global social protection response to COVID-19 has remained blind to the
specific challenges faced by women and girls. By January 2021, a total of 214 countries and territories
had taken over 1,700 social protection and labour market measures to protect jobs and incomes and
provide emergency support to those considered most vulnerable. Yet, only 13 per cent of these measures
were aimed at supporting women’s economic security – mostly by targeting them with cash or in-kind
transfers; and only 11 per cent addressed rising unpaid care demands through special family leaves,
transfers that compensate for school and daycare closures, or emergency childcare services for essential
workers, among others (UNDP and UN Women 2021).
7Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries Without better gender mainstreaming, the effectiveness of social protection systems in reducing poverty would be limited because they would fail to address these gendered risks and vulnerabilities. ‘Engendering’ the global social protection response to COVID-19 is an urgent priority to mitigate the impact on women and girls and to ensure that they are not left out of the economic recovery. The experience of the pandemic also provides an opportunity to think more systematically about how social protection systems can better promote gender equality in the medium and long term. It is to this objective that this report seeks to contribute by taking stock of and drawing lessons from the state of gender mainstreaming at the strategic planning and programme design level in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It brings together the findings of two parallel but complementary research projects: UN Women’s gender analysis of 50 national social protection strategies and UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti’s gender analysis of 40 social protection programmes. Both projects used a similar analytical framework, which was developed by UN Women for the analysis of national social protection strategies, and adapted by UNICEF Innocenti for the analysis of social protection programmes. The analytical framework and methodology are outlined in section II of this report, followed by a presentation of findings in section III along four dimensions: the overarching (legal and policy) framework, the recognition of gendered risks and vulnerabilities, the inclusion of gender- specific measures and programme design features, and the existence of gender-sensitive monitoring, evaluation and accountability systems. Each of these sections points to persistent gaps and biases, but also identifies a range of good practices and examples of gender mainstreaming across the policy and programme cycle. The final section (IV) concludes and provides concrete recommendations for improving gender mainstreaming in social protection going forward. 8
Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
II. Analytical framework and approach
Concepts and definitions
We define the key concepts in the following ways.
Social protection refers to a set of policies and programmes designed to reduce and prevent poverty,
vulnerability and social exclusion throughout the life course, with particular emphasis on marginalized
groups (UNICEF 2019b: 72; ILO 2017: 194). A social protection system in a country refers to the totality
of social security and protection schemes and programmes in a country (ILO 2017: 196).
A national social protection strategy is a strategic document developed by the state to set out a
medium- to long-term vision for the provision of social protection. These documents do not generally
include in-depth evaluations of specific programmes. Instead, they focus on establishing a set of priorities
that will guide policy implementation and assessment.
A social protection programme is a concrete set of government actions with a “distinct framework of
rules to provide social protection benefits to entitled beneficiaries. Such rules would specify the
geographical and personal scope of the programme (target group), entitlement conditions, the type of
benefits, benefit amounts (in the case of cash transfers), periodicity and other benefit characteristics, as
well as the financing (contributions, general taxation, other sources), governance and administration of
the programme“ (ILO 2017: 195).
Gender mainstreaming refers to the process of assessing the implications for women and men, girls
and boys, of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes. It is a strategy for making
the concerns and experiences of women and girls, as well as of men and boys, an integral part of the
design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic
and societal spheres, so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. The
ultimate goal of gender mainstreaming is to achieve gender equality (ECOSOC 1997).
Gendered risks and vulnerabilities refer to social and economic risks and vulnerabilities faced by
women that arise from gender-based discrimination and which derive from and manifest themselves in
their unequal access to resources, power and status in a given context.
9Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Analytical framework
To assess the extent to which gender is being mainstreamed into social protection, UN Women developed an
analytical framework that combines key insights from the gender and social protection literature and relevant
international human rights standards.i The analytical framework spans the following four key dimensions.
Overarching framework
Under this dimension, we assessed the overall orientation of the strategy or programme, looking for elements
that we expected to provide an enabling framework for mainstreaming gender into social protection planning,
design and implementation. This included reference to international human rights standards, the existence
of national legal frameworks, the endorsement of a rights-based approach to social protection, the adoption
of a life course approach, the explicit definition of gender equality and women’s or girls’ empowerment as
an objective to be achieved in or through social protection (see, for example, Sepulveda and Nyst 2012).
Procedural aspects, such as the participation of national women’s machineries and consultation with civil
society and/or beneficiaries in the development/design of the strategy/programme, were also included.
Recognition of gendered risks and vulnerabilities
Under this dimension, we assessed whether national social protection strategies and programmes recognize
gendered risks and vulnerabilities, as well as structural gender inequalities (Holmes and Jones 2013;
UN Women 2015a). For this purpose, we included a range of gendered risks present or heightened at various
stages of the life course, such as child/early marriage, adolescent pregnancy, gender-specific barriers to
education, maternity-related risks or widowhood, as well as three crosscutting structural barriers that affect
the whole lifespan: women’s lesser access to economic resources and opportunities; women’s and girls’
heightened exposure to gender-based violence; and women’s and girls’ disproportionate responsibility for
unpaid care and domestic work.
Gender-specific measures and programme design features
Under this dimension, we assessed whether strategies and programmes proposed specific measures or
design features to address the gender-specific risks and inequalities identified above. For example, do
they include programmes that target women or girls, or specific measures to promote women’s access to
social protection and public services, such as gender quotas in public works programmes or the provision
of childcare services? Do they include specific measures to address violence against women and girls, to
strengthen women’s economic security or to recognize and reduce women’s and girls’ unpaid care and
domestic work?
Monitoring, evaluation and accountability
Under this dimension, we assessed whether the strategy or programme includes gender-specific monitoring
and evaluation (M&E) indicators,ii participatory M&E methods and/or a robust grievance, feedback and
complaint mechanism for beneficiaries.
i See, for example, Behrendt et al. 2016; FAO 2018b, 2018c; Holmes and Jones 2010, 2013; Kabeer 2010; Molyneux 2007; Molyneux
et al. 2016; Sepulveda and Nyst 2012.
ii The term ‘gender-specific indicators’ is used to refer to indicators that explicitly call for disaggregation by sex (e.g. proportion of older
women and men who receive an old-age pension); refer to gender equality as the underlying objective (e.g. proportion of budget
allocated to gender equality measures); and where women and girls are specified within the indicator as the targeted population (e.g.
maternal mortality) (see UN Women 2018: 50).
10Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Methodology and approach
Using the analytical framework described above, both research teams carried out a qualitative content
analysis of strategies and programme documents to understand if and how they incorporated key gender
issues and concerns. To operationalize the analytical framework, UN Women developed a set of over 40
indicators, which was consistently applied to all national social protection strategies in our sample. The
set was then further refined by UNICEF Innocenti for the analysis of specific programmes. The analytical
framework with the full list of indicators by dimension can be found in Annex 1.
Sample and case selection
This research drew on two distinct, but overlapping samples: (i) a set of 50 national social protection
strategies, compiled and analysed by UN Women; and (ii) a set of 40 social protection programmes,
selected and analysed by UNICEF Innocenti – for a total of 74 countries. Both samples were restricted to
LMICs. There was an overlap between the two samples: specifically, for 21 countries both strategies and
programmes were assessed, whereas for the remaining 53 countries only a strategy or only a programme
was analysed (see Figure 1). While the lack of complete overlap is a limitation, this research provides
important insights on the extent of gender mainstreaming in social protection.
Figure 1: Country coverage of national social protection strategies
and programmes analysed
Powered by Bing
© GeoNames, Microsoft, Navinfo, TomTom, Wikipedia
Legend: The dark blue refers to countries where either the social protection strategy or a social protection programme was assessed,
whereas the pink refers to countries were both the social protection strategy and a social protection programme were assessed.
Source: authors’ elaboration.
Note: The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of the material do not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression
of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities or the delimitations of its frontiers.
11Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
The sample of 50 national social protection strategies was compiled through extensive online searches
in four languages (English, French, Portuguese and Spanish), including a review of websites of relevant
national ministries and departments, complemented by inquiries with regional and national social
protection experts and entities. The sample includes strategies that were published from 2010 onwards.
Overall, national social protection strategies were more commonly available in sub-Saharan Africa, parts
of Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia and the Pacific. Other subregions and regions, such as
Northern Africa, and Europe and Central Asia, have few or no available strategies (see Annex 2 for an
overview of strategies by region).
The sample of 40 social protection programmes consists of 32 non-contributory programmes, four labour
market programmes, and four integrated social protection programmes (e.g. social assistance and social
insurance or social care services) (see Annex 3). Countries were selected if they were LMICs, where
UNICEF has an office, and to ensure geographic diversity. Countries where UN Women conducted
their gender analysis of social protection strategies were prioritized to the maximum extent possible.
In addition, only one programme per country was selected, prioritizing flagshipiii programmes or those
that intend to promote the well-being of children or adolescents, and their households, in order to inform
UNICEF programming and advocacy. Out of the total sample of 40 programmes, 16 programmes are
drawn from countries in sub-Saharan Africa, nine from Latin America and the Caribbean, five from Europe
and Central Asia, six from Asia and the Pacific, and four from the Middle East and North Africa.
Data sources and data analysis
The data sources for the gender analysis of social protection strategies relied exclusively on information
contained in the strategy documents themselves, whereas in the case of social protection programmes
multiple sources were used, including programme documents, implementation manuals and, when
necessary, peer-reviewed and grey literature up to 2019. The time frame for both gender analyses excludes
the period from March 2020 onwards. Hence, the research constitutes a ‘baseline’ of the status of gender
mainstreaming in social protection strategies and programmes before the onset of COVID-19 and related
mitigation measures that have been implemented by governments around the world in response to the
pandemic.
All strategies and programmes were coded against the indicator framework. The coding of the social
protection strategies used binary variables. For example, if the strategy included the recognition of old-age
poverty as a gendered vulnerability – in that women are disproportionately or differently affected compared
with men – it was coded as Yes on that indicator, and No otherwise. The coding of social protection
programmes used categorical variables, with programmes coded against each indicator as Yes, No, Not
Applicable, Not Available, or Unclear. Each strategy and programme was coded by two coders (primary
coding and validation), and any discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the two reviewers jointly.
It is important to note that our gender analysis is focused on the legal coverage of strategies and programmes,
and not on their effective coverage. This implies that our gender analysis only covers how strategies and
programmes are designed, and does not assess whether this design is carried out in practice during their
implementation. While an in-depth analysis of implementation processes is critical, a gender analysis of the
extent to which gender considerations are mainstreamed in strategies’ and programmes’ design is the first
step towards building our understanding of how to strengthen social protection systems to enable gender
equality.
iii A programme was determined as flagship based on, for example, its beneficiaries’ coverage, or financial resources, or if determined
by the government as such.
12Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
III. Key findings
1. Overarching framework
A significant proportion of national social protection strategies we analysed contain elements that
can provide an enabling context for gender mainstreaming. A first notable feature is that 46 out of 50
strategies acknowledge human rights and their applicability in the national context, and 37 out of 50
explicitly reference binding international human rights standards and commitments, which provide
important guidance for the design and implementation of gender-responsive social protection (Sepulveda
and Nyst 2012; UN Women 2015a).
A second positive feature is that most strategies define social protection broadly to include social assistance
(50), public services (47), social insurance (45) and, to a lesser extent, infrastructure (35 out of 50).
Linking these components, particularly social assistance such as cash transfers and public services, can
make a significant difference for women and girls during implementation (UN Women 2015b; UN Women
2018). For instance, increasing the availability of on-site childcare and safe sanitation for women in public
works programmes can ensure both the full participation of mothers and the wellbeing of their children.
As the examples presented in sub-section 3 illustrate (see Box 2), linkages between components are
relevant because they usually play complementary functions in a social protection system. For example,
women’s ability to meet the requirements attached to conditional cash transfers is often hampered by
limited access to public services, such as functioning educational or health facilities, or infrastructure,
such as transportation, potable water, sanitation and electricity (Cookson 2018).
However, these enabling factors do not systematically translate into greater emphasis on gender equality as
a goal to be achieved in or through social protection, with only about a quarter of strategies (12 out of 50)
defining this as an explicit goal.
Programmes display a similar pattern. For example, 32 out of the 40 social protection programmes we
reviewed are enshrined in national-level frameworks. This is a key enabling feature – critical to ensuring
long-term sustainability and giving beneficiaries the legal ability to claim their rights (European Commission
2015, cited in Kaltenborn et al. 2017; Sepulveda and Nyst 2012). However, only 3iv out of 40 programmes
include explicit cross-references to national gender equality strategies or action plans. For example,
India’s public works programme Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(MGNREGS) forms part of the government’s series of Five-Year Plans that identify gender constraints and
barriers faced by rural women (Holmes and Jones 2013).
More importantly, only 5v of the 40 programmes explicitly state the achievement of gender equality
among their objectives. In four additional cases, the programmes are targeted at women, but the
underlying intention is unclear, namely whether the targeting is done for intrinsic reasons – as in, to
empower women – or for instrumental ones, where women are perceived to be more likely to spend the
social protection benefit for the well-being of children and their household. Interestingly, over half of the
programmes (25 out of 40 programmes) are either explicitly aimed at achieving children’s rights and/or at
addressing children’s vulnerabilities – for example, those of orphan children.
iv Cambodia’s second chance or informal technical vocational education and training programme (OECD 2017); Ethiopia’s Productive
Safety Net Programme (PSNP) (Holmes and Jones 2010); and India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(MGNREGS) (Holmes and Jones 2013).
v Argentina’s Asignación Universal por Hijo (AUH) (UNICEF et al. 2018; ANSES Observatorio de la Seguridad Social 2012); Bangladesh’s
Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP) (Tebaldi and Bilo 2019; Cho and Ruthbah 2018); the Plurinational State
of Bolivia’s Bono Juana Azurduy (BJA) (Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia 2009); India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarentee Scheme (MGNREGS) (Chopra et al. 2020; Goodrich et al. 2015; Holmes and Jones 2013); and Pakistan’s Benazir Income
Support Programme (BISP) (Ambler and De Brauw 2017; Cheema et al. 2016).
13Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Another potentially enabling factor for gender mainstreaming that we considered for both strategies and
programmes was consultation with different stakeholders in the design process. On the positive side,
most social protection strategies in our sample (42 out of 50) have been developed with some degree of
consultations and/or participation – most frequently of civil society organizations (28 out of 50) (see Figure
2). While these organizations may, in some cases, bring women’s viewpoints into the drafting process,
the available information did not allow us to ascertain the extent to which this had been the case. What
did emerge clearly, however, was that relatively few strategies have involved national women’s machineries
– despite their mandate, in many cases, for mainstreaming gender into sectoral policies (18 out of 50
strategies). All of those strategies that have involved national women’s machineries were either from
Latin America and the Caribbean (6 out of 12 strategies in that region) or sub-Saharan Africa (12 out of 28
strategies in that region). External actors – such as bilateral donors, UN agencies or international financial
institutions – have provided financial and/or technical support for three quarters of all strategies in our
sample (39 out of 50).
Figure 2: Number of national social protection strategies developed
with the participation of different stakeholders
39
40
30 28
19
20
10 8 8
0
International Civil society National women's Workers' and No participation
actors organizations machineries employers' acknowledged
representatives
Source: UN Women, authors’ elaboration.
From a programmatic perspective, we found limited publicly available information on stakeholder
participation in the design, implementation or governance of social protection programmes. From the
available evidence, we found that national ministries with gender equality or women’s empowerment in
their mandate had participated in the implementation or governance of eight social protection programmes
in the countries of Algeria, Cameroon, the Comoros, Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique and Rwanda
(Cirillo and Tebaldi 2016; République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire n.d.; World Bank 2013b;
Gazeaud et al. 2018; Abebrese 2011; Dake et al. 2018; Selvester et al. 2012; Machado et al. 2018;
Ruberangeyo et al. 2011). Programmes in Ecuador and Brazil report the participation of social actors in
design and M&E (Montenegro 2015; Government of Brazil, Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social e
Combate à Fome 2014), but the involvement of specific groups, including gender equality advocates or
women’s rights groups is not specified. For the remaining programmes, we were unable to find information
on stakeholder participation.
14Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
2. Recognition of gendered risks and vulnerabilities
For gender equality to be achieved in and through social protection, risk and vulnerability assessments
must clearly identify gendered risks and vulnerabilities. These include life course risks, such as early
marriage, maternity-related risks or old-age poverty, which tend to affect women more than men, as well
as structural inequalities, such as women’s lesser access to economic resources, their disproportionate
responsibility for unpaid care and domestic work, and their heightened exposure to gender-based violence.
Almost all social protection strategies in our sample (49 out of 50) explicitly recognize at least one life
course risk and/or structural inequality faced by women and girls. In fact, on average, the strategies
acknowledge five of the 11 gendered risks and vulnerabilities analysed (comprising eight life course risks
and three structural gender inequalities). A notable example of this trend is El Salvador’s social protection
strategy, which combines an enabling overarching framework with a high level of recognition of gendered
risks and vulnerabilities (see Box 1).
Box 1: El Salvador’s National Development, Social protection and Inclusion Plan, 2014-2019
El Salvador is a lower-middle-income country with high levels of poverty and a relatively weak social
protection system. Against this backdrop, the 2014 National Development Plan sets out a rights-based,
gender-responsive approach to social protection enshrined in national legal frameworks and encompassing
four key components: social assistance, social insurance, public services and infrastructure. The strategy
was developed by the Secretariat for Planning (Secretaria Técnica y de Planificación de la Presidencia) in
consultation with key stakeholders, including civil society and the national women’s machinery. The latter’s
involvement may help to explain why this strategy is one of only eight in our sample that explicitly aims to
close gender gaps in access and/or coverage of social protection. The strategy makes use of sex-
disaggregated data to highlight gendered risks and vulnerabilities. It acknowledges half of the life course
risks included in our framework (barriers to education and training, teenage pregnancy, maternity-related
health risks, and old-age poverty). More importantly, it recognizes and pledges to address all three of the
structural gender inequalities assessed, including by: improving specialized services for survivors of
gender-based violence; developing national care policies that reduce women’s care burdens and guarantee
the rights of care providers and care recipients; and improving women’s access to pensions – particularly
among those working informally. Finally, to monitor and evaluate policies and programmes, the strategy
includes sex-disaggregated data and participatory methods.
Despite this promising finding, and even though around two thirds of strategies nominally adopt a life
course approach to social protection, the recognition of specific vulnerabilities faced by women is heavily
centred on one life course stage: their reproductive years and, in particular, motherhood (see Figure 3).
From the eight life course risks outlined in Figure 3, the most widely recognized are maternity-related
health risks (39) and single-motherhood (28), followed by maternity-related income risks (24).
This includes references to: limited or lack of access to skilled birth attendants and postnatal care and the
risk of maternal mortality; higher rates of poverty experienced by single-mother/parent households and/
or the recognition that single mothers/parents face challenges in reconciling work and family obligations;
women’s limited ability to work during pregnancy and after childbirth; and the lack of income support
during this period.
15Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Figure 3: Number of national social protection strategies that recognize
different gendered risks across the life course
39
40
Number of strategies
28
30
24 24
18 17
20
12
10 6
0
Child/early Teenage Barriers Maternity- Single Maternity- Widowhood Old-age
marriage pregnancy to education related motherhood related poverty
and training health income
risks risks
Type of gendered risks and vulnerabilities
Source: UN Women, authors’ elaboration.
This maternalistic approach partly reflects the persistent vulnerability of women at this life course stage.
Data show that, across regions, women aged 25–34 are significantly more likely to live in poor households
than men of the same age group (UN Women 2019a), and, despite important progress over recent decades,
maternal mortality rates remain high, particularly in sub-Saharan African countries, which represent more
than half of our sample. Yet, this approach may also indicate a narrow understanding of gendered risks and
vulnerabilities as primarily related to women’s reproductive role, when the root causes of inequality and
exclusion are clearly more varied and not necessarily restricted to a particular life course stage.
On the one hand, women’s and girls’ lesser access to resources and opportunities often starts early –
with poor access to nutritious food, barriers to education, and/or early care responsibilities. While half of
national social protection strategies recognize barriers to education and training as an important risk
factor, comparatively few connect them to their gendered drivers, such as child and early marriage, and
adolescent pregnancy (see Figure 3). In fact, out of 50 strategies, only 12 and 18 respectively recognize
these risks. While this is partly a reflection of the sample, which includes some regions/countries where
prevalence of child/early marriage and adolescent fertility is relatively low, there is no clear relationship
between prevalence and problem recognition (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).
Just 11 out of 28 strategies from sub-Saharan Africa recognize child and early marriage as a gendered risk
to be addressed in and through social protection. There are significant variations in prevalence among the
countries whose strategies do recognize child and early marriage as a gendered risk: from 16.4 per cent
of women aged 20–24 who were married or in a union before the age of 18 in Lesotho to 76.3 per cent
in Niger (see Figure 4).
16Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Figure 4: Prevalence of child and early marriage in selected sub-Saharan
African countries, with and without recognition of it as a gendered risk
90
Proportion of women aged 20-24 years who were married
or in a union before age 18 (%) (latest data available)
80
Niger
70
60
Burkina Faso Mozambique
50
Nigeria
Democratic Ethiopia Somalia
Republic of Congo Malawi
40
Mauritania Madagascar Sao Tome e Principe
Benin Zimbabwe
Liberia
30 Uganda
Comoros Zambia
Côte d’Ivoire Gambia Sierra Leone
Senegal
Kenya
20 Burundi
Lesotho Ghana
10
Djibouti Rwanda
0
Countries with no recognition Countries with recognition
Source: UN Women, authors’ elaboration based on data for SDG Indicator 5.3.1, Proportion of women aged 20–24 years who were
married or in a union before age 18 (%), latest data available. Global SDG Indicators Database, accessible at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
indicators/database/.
Similarly, despite the elevated rates of teenage pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa, only around a third of
the strategies from this region (8 out of 28) recognize it as a gendered vulnerability. Once again, recognition
appears unrelated to the extent of the problem. Those countries that do not recognize teenage pregnancy
as a gender-specific risk vary widely in terms of prevalence, ranging from 21 adolescent births per 1,000
women (aged 15–19) in Djibouti to 137.6 in Malawi (see Figure 5).
17Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
Figure 5: Rates of adolescent motherhood in selected sub-Saharan countries,
with and without recognition of it as a gendered risk
200
Adolescent birth rate (per 1,000 women aged 15-19 years)
180 Mozambique
Democratic Madagascar
160
Republic Niger
of Congo Liberia
140 Burkina Malawi Uganda Zambia
(latest data available)
Faso
Côte d’Ivoire Somalia
120
Benin Sierra Leone
Nigeria
100 Kenya
Lesotho
Gambia Sao Tome e Principe
Mauritania
80 Ethiopia Zimbabwe
Ghana
Comoros Senegal
60 Burundi
Botswana
40 Rwanda
20 Djibouti
0
Countries with no recognition Countries with recognition
Source: UN Women, authors’ elaboration based on data for SDG Indicator 3.7.2, Adolescent birth rate (per 1,000 women aged 15–19
years), latest data available. Global SDG Indicators Database, accessible at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/.
The situation is somewhat different in Latin America where none of the strategies identify early union
formation as a social protection concern, but adolescent pregnancy – often the by-product of early unionsvi
– is identified as a gendered risk by 7 out of 11 strategies. Peru, for example, explicitly includes adolescent
pregnancy prevention programmes in its social protection strategy.
On the other hand, women’s socio-economic disadvantage tends to accumulate and deepen over the life
course. Across the globe, women of working age still face persistent inequalities and discrimination in the
labour market – lower employment rates, lower earnings, and, particularly in low-income countries, higher
rates of informality. Over three quarters of the strategies in our sample acknowledge at least one of these
factors regarding women’s lesser access to resources compared with men (see Figure 7). What is less
recognized, however, is that this also exacerbates their vulnerability in old age, including significant gender
pension gaps and, in some cases, heightened poverty risk among older women. Only Bangladesh,
Cambodia, El Salvador, Papua New Guinea, Romania and Uganda (6 out of 50 strategies) refer to greater
economic risk and/or social exclusion among women in old age, with particular focus on widows or
older women living alone.vii
vi While premarital sexual activity has become more prevalent in Latin America, increasing the likelihood of adolescent pregnancies
without prior union, data from a range of countries show that a large proportion of “single” adolescent mothers have been or are in
a relationship (marriage or consensual union), most likely with the child’s father (Rodriguez 2013).
vii Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Papua New Guinea, Romania and St. Kitts and Nevis.
18Mainstreaming gender into social protection strategies and programmes
Evidence from 74 low- and middle-income countries
To analyse whether social protection programmes had integrated a gender perspective in their
assessment of these risks, we engaged in a two-step process. First, we identified which risks
and vulnerabilities each programme aims to reduce (e.g. poor nutrition); second, we assessed whether
the programme acknowledges the gendered nature of this risk (e.g. women’s and girls’ greater likelihood
of skipping meals or eating less in some contexts,viii as well as their disproportionate responsibility
for household food security).
The main objectives of most of the 40 programmes we reviewed are poverty reduction (29 out of 40) and/
or child/family well-being (28 out of 40). This is perhaps unsurprising given our research’s focus on non-
contributory programmes, which are typically targeted at poor households or households with children,
and our prioritization of programmes aimed at children and their households. Almost half (19) of the 40
programmes acknowledge and seek to address nutritional needs, mostly focusing on children. Only two
include the nutritional needs of mothers: the Plurinational State of Bolivia’s Bono Juana Azurduy (Nagels
2015; Vidal Fuertes et al. 2015); and the Comoros’ Social Safety Net project (World Bank 2014). A third
programme, Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP), stands out as the only one with an
explicit acknowledgement of the linkages between gender inequality and nutrition, recognizing female-
headed households as an underserved group (Gavrilovic et al. 2020; Government of Ethiopia Ministry of
Agriculture 2014; Holmes and Jones 2010). It also focuses on empowering women in order to positively
influence the nutritional status of women and children in the family.
In countries where gender inequalities in education exist, especially in lower- and upper-secondary
schooling – for example, due to prevailing social and gender norms around girls’ education (and boys’
education in some contexts), as well as early and child marriage (UNICEF Data 2020) – it is critical that
these inequalities are acknowledged in social protection programmes and addressed through specific
design features. However, while over half (23) of programmes acknowledge barriers to children’s
education or aim at improving children’s education, only two explicitly acknowledge the gender barriers
in education or include specific design features to redress them. These are Chile’s Chile Crece Contigo
programme, which encourages continuing education for pregnant adolescents under the age of 15
(Chile Crece Contigo 2019a, 2019b), and Ghana’s LEAP programme, which aims to improve secondary
school enrolment, attendance and retention among children aged 5–15, including among girls (de Groot
2015; Dako-Gyeke and Oduro 2013; Amuzu et al. 2010; Handa et al. 2014). This is despite the fact that,
in 8 out of these 23 countries, there are persistent gender inequalities in lower secondary completion
rates for girls, for example.ix
Moving on to later life course stages, maternal healthcare and income security for women before and
after childbirth are enshrined in the SDGs and in the Social Protection Floors Recommendation No. 2020
(2012) – and programmes to address these risks are important components of social protection systems
(see, for instance, Addati et al. 2014). Yet, even though at the strategic level the recognition of maternity
health risks is widespread, only a quarter of programmes acknowledge maternity-related risks, with a
greater emphasis on health (12 out of 40 programmes) compared with income risks (only 6 out of 40
programmes) – for example, by targeting pregnant and lactating mothers specifically.
viii For example, research found that in times of economic shocks, women and girls are typically the first to reduce their food intake, and
shift to less diverse and nutritious food (de la O Campos and Garner 2012, cited in FAO 2018a). See also FAO 1998: 36.
ix Source: World Development Indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/. Latest year available. Last accessed 1 March 2021.
19You can also read
